This revision application challenged the Family Court's rejection of the maintainability of an Order 7 Rule 10 CPC petition. The High Court held the Family Court has no revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 Chapter V CPC for such proceedings.
Application disposed of with liberty to file appropriate proceeding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
5-cra-105-2015.doc
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVISION APPLICATION NO.105 OF 2015
Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders
Mr. Sanjay Jain i/b. Mr. A.V. Chatuphale, for the Applicant.
Mr. R.T. Lalwani i/b. Mr. Prakash Mahadik, for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Y.E. Mooman a/w. Ms. Manisha Gawade, for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATED: JULY 30, 2015
. This Civil Revision Application is moved whereby the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the maintainability before the Family Court was rejected by the Family Court.
Vishal 1 of 2
5-cra-105-2015.doc
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
Vishal 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Order 7 Rule 10 CPC filing in Family Court is maintainable.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
APPLICANT
FAMILY COURT
MRIDULA BHATKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
